I always put an end to the nonsense by saying that science is about how, religion is about why, there is no conflict, and that they could believe what they wished and I had nothing to say about it, but they had best leave their religion outside my science classroom.

Let there be no doubt that as they are currently practiced, there is no common ground between science and religion . . The claims of science rely on experimental verification, while the claims of religions rely on faith. These are irreconcilable approaches to knowing, which ensures an eternity of debate wherever and whenever the two camps meet. —Neil deGrasse Tyson

Tyson is right, you are wrong. There is a fundamental epistemological conflict between religion and science, a gulf that is huge and absolute. Anyone who claims otherwise is in denial. There is a reason why the word "faith" was invented, and a reason why the very concept is antithetical to the scientific method.

I have heard everything from the idea that science teachers must teach the children what the majority of the parents believe (i.e., biblical creationism) to instances where science teachers were told by their churches that if they taught evolution -- even if they personally did not accept it but merely taught it as one origin theory among many -- they could not hold any leadership positions in their congregations.

That's what I mean by needing more honest science teachers. They should tell that preacher that what goes on in a science class is none of his business. The preacher also needs to be lectured on one of the founding principles of this country; the separation of church and state.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."― Robert G. Ingersoll,

What would you say to those students, parents, administrators, and other Christians who asserted that interpreting Genesis non-literally opens the door to interpreting the Gospels non-literally....

I'd tell them that we cannot change science just because of their religious views. They have a right to their religious beliefs but have absolutely no right to force that belief into the public school classroom.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."― Robert G. Ingersoll,

I always put an end to the nonsense by saying that science is about how, religion is about why, there is no conflict, and that they could believe what they wished and I had nothing to say about it, but they had best leave their religion outside my science classroom.

Let there be no doubt that as they are currently practiced, there is no common ground between science and religion . . The claims of science rely on experimental verification, while the claims of religions rely on faith. These are irreconcilable approaches to knowing, which ensures an eternity of debate wherever and whenever the two camps meet. —Neil deGrasse Tyson

Tyson is right, you are wrong. There is a fundamental epistemological conflict between religion and science, a gulf that is huge and absolute. Anyone who claims otherwise is in denial. There is a reason why the word "faith" was invented, and a reason why the very concept is antithetical to the scientific method.

That you and Tyson have a weed up your arse about religion is your problem. Not mine or anybody else's. That statement, and yours, represent a deep and fundamental misunderstanding of true religious faith -- and paint everything with the broad brush of fundamentalism and blind immitation of tradition. (which don't just happen in religion either, btw)

I've never seen any conflict. And, in fact, one of the central teachings of the relgion I adhere to is the essential harmony between science and religion.

I always put an end to the nonsense by saying that science is about how, religion is about why, there is no conflict, and that they could believe what they wished and I had nothing to say about it, but they had best leave their religion outside my science classroom.

Let there be no doubt that as they are currently practiced, there is no common ground between science and religion . . The claims of science rely on experimental verification, while the claims of religions rely on faith. These are irreconcilable approaches to knowing, which ensures an eternity of debate wherever and whenever the two camps meet. —Neil deGrasse Tyson

Tyson is right, you are wrong. There is a fundamental epistemological conflict between religion and science, a gulf that is huge and absolute. Anyone who claims otherwise is in denial. There is a reason why the word "faith" was invented, and a reason why the very concept is antithetical to the scientific method.

I agree, Faustus. I have always been skeptical of the argument that "science is about how, religion is about why." I might be more inclined to accept the statement that "science is about how, religious-based origin myths are about why," but even this statement leads to difficulties. Science, for instance, may explain how our bodies wither and age and finally die over time, while religion may explain why we must die: either because of Adam and Eve's rebellious Original Sin (according to some forms of Christianity), or because of a debate between Old Man and Old Woman (according to the Blackfeet), or because of the interference of the trickster Coyote (according to the Wishram and the Maidu), or because of the perversion of Men by Melkor Morgoth (according to the opinions of some of the earliest humans in J.R.R. Tolkien's theological tractate, Athrabeth Finrod ah Andreth).

These myths -- including the literary one by Tolkien -- do explain why we die (yet they obviously cannot be harmonized into one systematic and integral whole), though they provide adequate answers only for a small section of the population that accepts one of these myths as true according to the literal or the spiritual sense (the latter which the Catholic Church subdivides into allegorical, moral, and anagogical senses), and are relatively useless for providing adequate answers for the human population at large.

And as we can see by those Christians who assert only the literal sense of the Genesis myths, even interpreting origin myths metaphorically, allegorically, symbolically, morally, anagogically, psychologically, psychoanalytically, and ecocritically -- in other words, interpreting origin myths in more universalistic and theoretical ways so that they may be of value not only to those who do not belong to the religions from which these myths originated, but also to those who do belong to the religions from which these myths originated yet who accept contemporary scientific theories such as evolution as well -- can be and is rejected as a perversion of the sacred narratives.

What would you say to those students, parents, administrators, and other Christians who asserted that interpreting Genesis non-literally opens the door to interpreting the Gospels non-literally....

I'd tell them that we cannot change science just because of their religious views. They have a right to their religious beliefs but have absolutely no right to force that belief into the public school classroom.

The flip-side is, you haven't any right to force your atheism in public schools either.

But, there should be no problem. Evolution is merely facts about biological mechanism. It's no different that studying gravity -- as both the observed fact and theory that it is.

What anybody takes away from an emperical observation of the facts is up to them. Therefore, neither a person's religion, nor their atheism -- depending on which they have -- even figures into the picture.

It's really quite simple. These things are just complicated by folks with an axe to grind.

There should be an executive order coming from the president that requires the teaching of evolution in both public and private schools. Not that that will likely happen.

Not in our lifetime.

But as our nation continues its slide downward, I have faith that we will see the error of our ways and revitalize our science teaching.

There's always hope. The problem is that we, as a society, are letting the extremist christians have their way. That's how many societies have gone down; by letting an extremist religion take over.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."― Robert G. Ingersoll,

....I've never seen any conflict. And, in fact, one of the central teachings of the relgion I adhere to is the essential harmony between science and religion.

Some people are happy fooling themselves like that. They manufacture this belief out of thin air and pretend it's real. That's why we have religions; for those that can't handle the truth.

Dave - Just a Man in the Mountains.

"I will not attack your doctrines nor your creeds if they accord liberty to me. If they hold thought to be dangerous - if they aver that doubt is a crime, then I attack them one and all, because they enslave the minds of men."― Robert G. Ingersoll,